Reason for withdrawal from publication
This review was withdrawn from The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3, because it was out of date. It has been updated by a new review ('Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour') first published in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 7.
The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Feedback
McAlpine, August 2002
Summary
I have some questions. In the four included studies, how many women were in each study and when were the studies done? Was a comparison made between maternity hospitals, birth centres, and home delivery? For postpartum haemorrhage of more than 500 mls, what does "relative risk O.38, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.46" mean in terms of numbers?
Why do you conclude that active management should be the 'routine' management of choice in a maternity hospital? What are the implications for other settings?
Reply
A new review team are currently preparing an update for this review and will respond to the feedback when the update has been completed. [Reply from Cecily Begley, June 2007]
Contributors
Summary of comments from Elizabeth McAlpine, August, 2002
Matthews, December 2004
Summary
My anecdotal observation, having changed my practice to include physiological management of the third stage, is that women who choose this option have a decrease in the amount of lochia postpartum and a shorter duration of vaginal discharge. I have not seen any studies that could confirm or refute this.
Reply
A new review team are currently preparing an update for this review and will respond to the feedback when the update has been completed. [Reply from Cecily Begley, June 2007]
Contributors
Comment received from Mary Jo Matthews, December 2004
Van Wyk, 4 March 2009
Summary
This review was last updated in 2000, and comments sent in 2002 and 2004 have not been addressed. The authors stated in 2007 that an update is in progress. We are concerned about the validity of the review findings.
[Summary of feedback from Susan van Wyk on behalf of the Masters Clinical Epidemiology class, Stellenbosch University, February 2009]
Reply
A new review team are currently preparing an update for this review and will respond to the feedback received in 2002 and 2004 as part of their update. [Reply from Sonja Henderson, Managing Editor, March 2009]
What's new
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 16 June 2010 | Amended | Updated published note ‐ see Published notes |
History
Protocol first published: Issue 1, 1997 Review first published: Issue 1, 1997
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 4 March 2009 | Feedback has been incorporated | We have received feedback from Susan van Wyk on behalf of the Masters Clinical Epidemiology class, Stellenbosch University, about the validity of the findings of the current publication pending the completion of the update, as a result of which we have withdrawn the review from publication. |
| 3 March 2009 | Amended | Review withdrawn from publication in Issue 3, 2009. |
| 5 August 2008 | Amended | A note has been added to explain that this review is currently being updated following a new protocol which has been published in Issue 4, 2008 of The Cochrane Library. |
| 22 January 2008 | Amended | Converted to new review format. A note has been added to explain that this review is currently being updated following a new protocol which has been submitted for editorial approval to publish. |
| 9 March 2000 | New citation required and conclusions have changed | Substantive amendment |
Withdrawn from publication for reasons stated in the review